Never Give More than Two Weeks Notice
-
@dyasny said in Never Give More than Two Weeks Notice:
@scottalanmiller said in Never Give More than Two Weeks Notice:
Ha, I was not. Way too expensive to be doing that stuff. But I could have been, and it would have been completely reasonable. If it would not have taken the core team away from production work.
I know CEOs that take out the trash. The "it's not my job" mentality is what makes other countries sound like bad unions. People think that they are better than the executives, and every else's job is beneath them.
Interesting. So a CEO calls you into his office, and tells you to wash the floor there. You'll simply do it, right?
100% no question, yes. Unless I want to quit. Paying me IT executive salary to do a zero stress floor washing job? Score. That sounds great. What kind of idiot would be upset with that?
-
@scottalanmiller said in Never Give More than Two Weeks Notice:
Sure, but that's the company's fault for not having been properly staff. There is still NOTHING to sue him over, he's done literally nothing wrong.
Well, his actions caused significant damage to the company. Obviously, there is rarely any point in pursuing such a claim because of the deeper pocket principle, but the fact that his direct actions caused damages remains.
-
Remember, in the US, "all" jobs are there to "support the business". It's that simple. Our job isn't to be a robot doing one task, that's for robots or minimum wage factory workers who can't learn skills to do. Anyone paid to be a real human with any skills at all's benefit is in being able to adjust to changes in the environment. That's our value. That's our job.
-
@dyasny said in Never Give More than Two Weeks Notice:
@scottalanmiller said in Never Give More than Two Weeks Notice:
Sure, but that's the company's fault for not having been properly staff. There is still NOTHING to sue him over, he's done literally nothing wrong.
Well, his actions caused significant damage to the company. Obviously, there is rarely any point in pursuing such a claim because of the deeper pocket principle, but the fact that his direct actions caused damages remains.
No, HIS actions did not. The damage came from them not being prepared. Not his fault. What if he had been hit by a bus, would the company have sued his widow?
-
@scottalanmiller said in Never Give More than Two Weeks Notice:
WHY should you be compensated? that makes no logical sense. You think that companies should not be free to adjust to changing business conditions. that's how US companies stay ahead.
You are just explaining to us why the US makes more money. The US has a lot bad going for it, but you are making it really clear how much basic day to day stuff we get really, really right.
LOL, ok, you're entitled to your own opinions
I'll simply disagree. -
@dyasny said in Never Give More than Two Weeks Notice:
@scottalanmiller said in Never Give More than Two Weeks Notice:
That's why the US is more able to respond to changes. We can hire people to do anything. I hire you to work on Windows today, but we change to Linux, you can't refuse to work on that, instead. You are free to quit, to demand different money, whatever.
You are hired to do IT work, the tech isn't usually mentioned. But in my experience, if a manager suddenly asks you to become a truck driver for the company, you can refuse. If he's not happy with that, he can fire you, and pay the lawful compensation.
Oh - well that's the same in the US then... but there is zero compensation when you're fired. zero. the job changed - now... with that change, they can also try to change the salary - at which point that basically means you're going through a job interview process again... you choose to take it not. If you choose not to take it, then you're quitting. Just that simple.
It's insane to think that changes in company need can't be reflected in the existing staff, that makes the staff dramatically less valuable.
If a company I work for as a sysadmin suddenly decides I have to also be an accountant, I should be able to refuse, and if that leads to a termination, I should be compensated for the company's flimsiness, and not just get thrown out to the street
Flimsiness? what? The company is changing, what makes that flimsy? If anything - you should be happy they didn't just fire you directly. instead they liked you enough to offer you another job to keep you at the company. now if you don't like that job - fine, don't take it, but then you've quit. I suppose one could look at it like this - the company forced you into the new job duties - you refused to do them, so they fired you... I have no idea how that would play out in court.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Never Give More than Two Weeks Notice:
@Dashrender said in Never Give More than Two Weeks Notice:
@scottalanmiller said in Never Give More than Two Weeks Notice:
@dyasny said in Never Give More than Two Weeks Notice:
@Dashrender said in Never Give More than Two Weeks Notice:
In many if not most job descriptions in the US, it includes "additional duties as assigned." So yes, that means they can ask - and require - you to clean toilets... is that somehow beneath you?
Yes it is, if that is not in my job description. I've done my bit of menial labour when I had to, but I didn't study and build a career in IT to do things that are not my direct responsibility.
That's why the US is more able to respond to changes. We can hire people to do anything. I hire you to work on Windows today, but we change to Linux, you can't refuse to work on that, instead. You are free to quit, to demand different money, whatever.
It's insane to think that changes in company need can't be reflected in the existing staff, that makes the staff dramatically less valuable.
Great point - so... in that situation what happens in Europe?
Today we have 5 IT people all supporting Windows. The company decides to switch to Linux. Does this mean that those 5 IT people are all fired? I mean the company is going to Linux, so they aren't really 'redundant', so what's it called?
Yes, in the UK that's called redundant. They don't use the dictionary definition, they use it to sound better than "unneeded", but it's poor English.
Ok thanks.
and wow - so they have to pay to get rid of employees they no longer need. Socialism at it's best!
-
@dyasny said in Never Give More than Two Weeks Notice:
@scottalanmiller said in Never Give More than Two Weeks Notice:
WHY should you be compensated? that makes no logical sense. You think that companies should not be free to adjust to changing business conditions. that's how US companies stay ahead.
You are just explaining to us why the US makes more money. The US has a lot bad going for it, but you are making it really clear how much basic day to day stuff we get really, really right.
LOL, ok, you're entitled to your own opinions
I'll simply disagree.The US has a Per Capita GDP of $60K. Canada has a per capita GDP of $48K. Cost of living is higher in Canada.
You've done a great job of explaining to us why the US is like this. Often Americans don't understand why we tend to be so rich and have so many job opportunities. But this is an area that really, really explains it. Why we don't fear loss of work like other countries.
Don't get me wrong, I prefer living most anywhere else and I'll take the lower incomes, there are far more important things than money. But when it comes to "why US companies thrive" in, this really shows the dramatic different between sensible, flexible, logical business laws that protect both parties, and draconian insanity that makes everyone poorer without benefiting anyone.
-
@Dashrender said in Never Give More than Two Weeks Notice:
@scottalanmiller said in Never Give More than Two Weeks Notice:
@Dashrender said in Never Give More than Two Weeks Notice:
@scottalanmiller said in Never Give More than Two Weeks Notice:
@dyasny said in Never Give More than Two Weeks Notice:
@Dashrender said in Never Give More than Two Weeks Notice:
In many if not most job descriptions in the US, it includes "additional duties as assigned." So yes, that means they can ask - and require - you to clean toilets... is that somehow beneath you?
Yes it is, if that is not in my job description. I've done my bit of menial labour when I had to, but I didn't study and build a career in IT to do things that are not my direct responsibility.
That's why the US is more able to respond to changes. We can hire people to do anything. I hire you to work on Windows today, but we change to Linux, you can't refuse to work on that, instead. You are free to quit, to demand different money, whatever.
It's insane to think that changes in company need can't be reflected in the existing staff, that makes the staff dramatically less valuable.
Great point - so... in that situation what happens in Europe?
Today we have 5 IT people all supporting Windows. The company decides to switch to Linux. Does this mean that those 5 IT people are all fired? I mean the company is going to Linux, so they aren't really 'redundant', so what's it called?
Yes, in the UK that's called redundant. They don't use the dictionary definition, they use it to sound better than "unneeded", but it's poor English.
Ok thanks.
and wow - so they have to pay to get rid of employees they no longer need. Socialism at it's best!
That's nothing to do with socialism.
-
@Dashrender said in Never Give More than Two Weeks Notice:
Flimsiness? what? The company is changing, what makes that flimsy?
Yeah, healthy companies adapt to change. The world is a changing place, companies that aren't changing are dying.
-
There is a reason that Canada is the number one place we never want to hire (or do business.) We actively don't do business in Canada, as nice of a place as it is, because it's legal system is so terrible and everything is so costly.
-
@scottalanmiller I can relate to that. Sometimes I'm asked to go move or set up a printer to make someone feel like they were getting attention, instead of just sending an intern to do it. It is refreshing because then I get to go walk around a bit, say hi to people, have zero stress, and a break from more complicated issues. So I really don't mind it either.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Never Give More than Two Weeks Notice:
@dyasny said in Never Give More than Two Weeks Notice:
@scottalanmiller said in Never Give More than Two Weeks Notice:
Ha, I was not. Way too expensive to be doing that stuff. But I could have been, and it would have been completely reasonable. If it would not have taken the core team away from production work.
I know CEOs that take out the trash. The "it's not my job" mentality is what makes other countries sound like bad unions. People think that they are better than the executives, and every else's job is beneath them.
Interesting. So a CEO calls you into his office, and tells you to wash the floor there. You'll simply do it, right?
100% no question, yes. Unless I want to quit. Paying me IT executive salary to do a zero stress floor washing job? Score. That sounds great. What kind of idiot would be upset with that?
Exactly!
-
@jmoore said in Never Give More than Two Weeks Notice:
@scottalanmiller I can relate to that. Sometimes I'm asked to go move or set up a printer to make someone feel like they were getting attention, instead of just sending an intern to do it. It is refreshing because then I get to go walk around a bit, say hi to people, have zero stress, and a break from more complicated issues. So I really don't mind it either.
Yup. I enjoy being a "real person" and helping the company and being valuable. It's good for me, good for the company.
-
@dyasny said in Never Give More than Two Weeks Notice:
@scottalanmiller said in Never Give More than Two Weeks Notice:
Sure, but that's the company's fault for not having been properly staff. There is still NOTHING to sue him over, he's done literally nothing wrong.
Well, his actions caused significant damage to the company. Obviously, there is rarely any point in pursuing such a claim because of the deeper pocket principle, but the fact that his direct actions caused damages remains.
No they did not. His's bosses actions caused the damage. The boss not having redundency in the person who left caused the failure to the company.. not the leaving. The company is always responsible for covering the situation.
What if he died from a bus accident? Are you saying the company could sue the bus company for killing their employee and costing the company millions? No way that would stand in the US.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Never Give More than Two Weeks Notice:
@Dashrender said in Never Give More than Two Weeks Notice:
@scottalanmiller said in Never Give More than Two Weeks Notice:
@Dashrender said in Never Give More than Two Weeks Notice:
@scottalanmiller said in Never Give More than Two Weeks Notice:
@dyasny said in Never Give More than Two Weeks Notice:
@Dashrender said in Never Give More than Two Weeks Notice:
In many if not most job descriptions in the US, it includes "additional duties as assigned." So yes, that means they can ask - and require - you to clean toilets... is that somehow beneath you?
Yes it is, if that is not in my job description. I've done my bit of menial labour when I had to, but I didn't study and build a career in IT to do things that are not my direct responsibility.
That's why the US is more able to respond to changes. We can hire people to do anything. I hire you to work on Windows today, but we change to Linux, you can't refuse to work on that, instead. You are free to quit, to demand different money, whatever.
It's insane to think that changes in company need can't be reflected in the existing staff, that makes the staff dramatically less valuable.
Great point - so... in that situation what happens in Europe?
Today we have 5 IT people all supporting Windows. The company decides to switch to Linux. Does this mean that those 5 IT people are all fired? I mean the company is going to Linux, so they aren't really 'redundant', so what's it called?
Yes, in the UK that's called redundant. They don't use the dictionary definition, they use it to sound better than "unneeded", but it's poor English.
Ok thanks.
and wow - so they have to pay to get rid of employees they no longer need. Socialism at it's best!
That's nothing to do with socialism.
You don't think so? The companies paying people who don't work their anymore? OK split this and we can have another thread.
-
@Dashrender said in Never Give More than Two Weeks Notice:
@scottalanmiller said in Never Give More than Two Weeks Notice:
@Dashrender said in Never Give More than Two Weeks Notice:
@scottalanmiller said in Never Give More than Two Weeks Notice:
@Dashrender said in Never Give More than Two Weeks Notice:
@scottalanmiller said in Never Give More than Two Weeks Notice:
@dyasny said in Never Give More than Two Weeks Notice:
@Dashrender said in Never Give More than Two Weeks Notice:
In many if not most job descriptions in the US, it includes "additional duties as assigned." So yes, that means they can ask - and require - you to clean toilets... is that somehow beneath you?
Yes it is, if that is not in my job description. I've done my bit of menial labour when I had to, but I didn't study and build a career in IT to do things that are not my direct responsibility.
That's why the US is more able to respond to changes. We can hire people to do anything. I hire you to work on Windows today, but we change to Linux, you can't refuse to work on that, instead. You are free to quit, to demand different money, whatever.
It's insane to think that changes in company need can't be reflected in the existing staff, that makes the staff dramatically less valuable.
Great point - so... in that situation what happens in Europe?
Today we have 5 IT people all supporting Windows. The company decides to switch to Linux. Does this mean that those 5 IT people are all fired? I mean the company is going to Linux, so they aren't really 'redundant', so what's it called?
Yes, in the UK that's called redundant. They don't use the dictionary definition, they use it to sound better than "unneeded", but it's poor English.
Ok thanks.
and wow - so they have to pay to get rid of employees they no longer need. Socialism at it's best!
That's nothing to do with socialism.
You don't think so? The companies paying people who don't work their anymore? OK split this and we can have another thread.
Correct, completely unrelated. The government paying people who don't work there may be tied to it, but not companies.
-
I live in Canada and I've never had a job where there was an expectation that I could refuse any duties assigned to me without getting fired (unless they were unsafe)
However we do have like a reverse 2 weeks notice rule. If your employer is going to fire you they either have to fire you or pay you out 2 weeks worth of work. Kind of weird, since I can't imagine anyone not paying out the 2 weeks. (This is after a 3 month probation period after being hired)
Often there is 2 weeks notice of quiting explicitly explicitly spelled out in contracts, but I don't think it is enforceable.
-
@flaxking said in Never Give More than Two Weeks Notice:
I live in Canada and I've never had a job where there was an expectation that I could refuse any duties assigned to me without getting fired (unless they were unsafe)
Same in the US. People are just delusional. They state "you can refuse to do work that isn't in your job description" but they ignore the "but they can fire you for doing it." It's the same as quitting. Of course you can quit your job if you don't want it anymore.
The US absolutely does not have anything like people are implying it has, not in the least. It is something being projected from union contracts where collective bargaining has made a strict scope of what someone is allowed to do, and they are thinking that somehow those contracts apply to non-union workers, which they do not.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Never Give More than Two Weeks Notice:
@flaxking said in Never Give More than Two Weeks Notice:
I live in Canada and I've never had a job where there was an expectation that I could refuse any duties assigned to me without getting fired (unless they were unsafe)
The US absolutely does not have anything like people are implying it has, not in the least. It is something being projected from union contracts where collective bargaining has made a strict scope of what someone is allowed to do, and they are thinking that somehow those contracts apply to non-union workers, which they do not.
Yes, that kind of thinking is more up the union alley. And although Canadian labour laws have been influenced by unions, they are still vastly different workplaces. For example, in the trades, of you are non unionized there is often an expectation you will do work unsafely without reporting it, if it's what you need to do to get the job done. However, if you are unionized it is the complete opposite.
